By any statistical measure, the Buffalo Bill are coming off an ugly 2010 season, going 4-12 and finishing last in the AFC East.

But by college researchers' calculations, the Bills are far from ugly - in fact they are the most attractive team in the NFL.

That's right. The Bills have been deemed the handsomest squad in the league, according to a study commissioned by the Wall Street Journal.

The newspaper asked researchers at Ursinus College in Pennsylvania to analyze the facial structure of 320 NFL starters - five players on offense and five on defense. The owner and head coach were also put under the microscope since they were considered by the newspaper to be "two of the most-photographed personalities on any team."

WSJ: The NFL's Best-Looking Team

A computer program sized up the photographs in terms of facial symmetry, which is widely viewed by researchers as a barometer for attractiveness. After scanning the images, the Bills were rated the "hottest" team, while the Kansas City Chiefs were deemed the least attractive.

As the Journal notes, the Bills were awful last year and the Chiefs were a playoff team. So being tall, dark and handsome in real life may actually mean you are overmatched, underwhelming and ugly on the gridiron. As the newspaper notes: "Teams with particularly attractive players might be guilty of favoring people who are more presentable than talented. Jennifer VanGilder, a professor of business economics at Ursinus who oversaw the research, said the lure of hiring pretty faces is unconscious. 'People are drawn to more symmetrical objects.'"

Amazingly, quarterbacks did not rate as the most attractive in the study. That distinction actually went to kickers. So step aside Tom Brady, Mark Sanchez and Drew Brees. The ladies actually prefer Stephen Gostkowski, Nick Folk and Garrett Hartley.

Amazingly, quarterbacks did not rate as the most attractive in the study. That distinction actually went to kickers. So step aside Tom Brady, Mark Sanchez and Drew Brees. The ladies actually prefer Stephen Gostkowski, Nick Folk and Garrett Hartley.

In the abstract, sure. But factor in vast differences in charisma and income, and it's no contest who pulls hotter tail.

This is an epically comical story courtesy of SI's Jeff Pearlman, that includes the following absurd characters: Rich Gannon, Elvis Grbac, the Kansas City Chiefs, and a dim-witted People magazine photographer. Prepare to feel life-long sympathy for Grbac.

Pearlman's yarn:

One of my favorite all-time stories is about Elvis Grbac (left), Rich Gannon (right) and People Magazine's Sexiest Men issue from 1998. It is both outlandish and 100-percent true.

Back in the day I knew many People staffers, and they were all cool, fun, intelligent-and woefully ignorant about sports. Every year, in planning the Sexiest Men issue, People's editors would ask a bunch of us at Sports Illustrated for suggestions and insight. In 1998, for a reason I'll never understand, they decided not to seek out help.

The magazine chose Rich Gannon as its Sexiest Athlete. At the time, Gannon was a member of the Kansas City Chiefs. Still a couple of seasons removed from his golden tenure with the Raiders, Gannon was 33, handsome and likable. In other words, a solid choice. Yet People, being People, simply informed the photographer assigned to the piece that the Sexiest Athlete was the Chiefs' quarterback. Hence, he took pictures of the Chiefs' quarterback. Well, one of the Chiefs' quarterbacks: Elvis Grbac.

Yup.

The pictures made their way back to the New York offices, and editors were dumbfounded. This was their Sexiest Athlete? Yet upon learning the truth, no one with the magazine had the heart (guts?) to tell Grbac that an unfathomable mistake had been made. As a result, Elvis Grbac reigns as People's 1998 Sexiest Athlete.

The article's final line says it all: "His personality makes him sexy."

The good thing about being twins in this case is that you will never be the ugliest guy around.

CHENZ A!

09-08-2011, 08:10 PM

Brian Waters carried us for so long, he was such a handsome man. I knew losing him would hurt.

MahiMike

09-08-2011, 08:15 PM

It's Mccluster's fault. Brothers with dregs look like the Predator to me.

RealSNR

09-08-2011, 08:18 PM

I think I know why. THey count team owners as part of the team.

Clark Hunt is an ugly, ugly, man.

rocknrolla

09-08-2011, 08:22 PM

Stephen Smith must be the gayest sports reporter ever. If he is looking for the most attractive team during the NFL opening week.

rockymtnchief

09-08-2011, 08:42 PM

I think I know why. THey count team owners as part of the team.

Clark Hunt is an ugly, ugly, man.

Not if you compare him to Al Davis.

1ChiefsDan

09-08-2011, 09:26 PM

Explain to me how we lose to Seattle with these guys on the team?

http://www.rotoworld.com/images/headshots/NFL/3711.jpg

Holly shit. My wife asked her parents for The Mask one year. They sent us Mask. This has to be the dude.

NJChiefsFan

09-08-2011, 10:58 PM

LMAO:LOL:LMAO:LOL: wow that guy looks retarded

Not sure if this is what Rain Man meant by twins, but this guys has a twin brother on the Raiders I think.

CrazyPhuD

09-09-2011, 03:35 AM

Not sure if this is what Rain Man meant by twins, but this guys has a twin brother on the Raiders I think.

Let me guess...the Seahawks guy's first name is Dumb...and the raiders guy's first name is Dumber?

WhiteWhale

09-09-2011, 06:37 AM

I've said it before and I'll say it again:

I like my coffee hot, my beer cold, and my football players ugly.

Otter

09-09-2011, 07:08 AM

Off the top of my head we have:

Matt Cassell
Eric Berry

and a bunch or average looking guys. It's not like that dude from "Mask" is playing center, who's bringing down the curve? Nonsense I say.

WhiteWhale

09-09-2011, 10:54 AM

Off the top of my head we have:

Matt Cassell
Eric Berry

and a bunch or average looking guys. It's not like that dude from "Mask" is playing center, who's bringing down the curve? Nonsense I say.

To be serious about it....

It's not grading features, it's grading how similar one half of the face is to the other.

I find the criteria a bit dubious to label 'attractiveness'. They didn't poll a bunch of women (the only accurate gauge)... they had a machine measure symmetry. A guy could look like a donkey, but as long as the two sides are symmetrical they'll get a better rating. They'll still be symmetrically ugly though.

DMAC

09-14-2011, 02:28 PM

This demoralized the team.

Rooster

09-14-2011, 02:34 PM

This demoralized the team.

I think you are right. Ugly is as Ugly does.

rico

09-14-2011, 04:50 PM

I wonder if these people will conclude that there is a positive correlation between attractiveness and winning.... you know since they reportedly use such gigantic data sets.

lcarus

09-14-2011, 04:57 PM

Explain to me how we lose to Seattle with these guys on the team?

http://www.rotoworld.com/images/headshots/NFL/3711.jpg

Looks more like Viggo the Carpathian to me.
http://stevemccutchen.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/final-vigo.png?w=413&h=180